Scrutinizing Street Epistemology and Street Evangelism

[2PhiloVoid]

For those of you who may not have heard, there's a more socially incisive method being used by [some] atheists these past few years in their attempt to deconvert people from religion (or from Christian faith specifically). It's called Street Epistemology, and it's the atheist's answer to Street Evangelism often promoted by various evangelical Christians.

Needless to say, the conversations which transpire during these casual public encounters involve mostly common people, but they are interesting to listen to even if they're obviously not as entrenched or academically inclined as are debates between professionals.

In the particular *11 minute* video posted below, a fairly clear example of Street Epistemology is presented wherein, Reid, a cool, calm and collected atheist, delivers sustained questioning to a fairly young Christian woman by the name of Tia. Tia's demeanor is cheerful and peppy, and she appears somewhat confident even if maybe a just a bit nervous while giving her 'defense' of Christian faith.

As the video proceeds along, the atheist seems to gain the upper hand, but it also seems that mistakes in rational thinking are made on both sides of the conversation. As you listen in, let your own assessment of both persons spur your evaluation of how well you think each of them does in the overall discussion. What mistakes does she make in her thinking? What errors or false assumptions might characterize the atheist's mode of questioning? Is all of this a waste of time? What's good about this kind of encounter? What's bad about it? Then DISCUSS your evaluation of this Street Epistemology encounter:

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[AlexDTX]

I didn't watch the whole thing because the woman, Tia, started off the wrong way. We do not believe in Jesus because the Bible tells us to, we believe the Bible because we know Jesus. There is no argument an atheist can give when you give your personal testimony in knowing Jesus.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

His main point that was repeated was 'does belief make it true?' That seemed to be his resounding question. She couldn't explain the internal experience she had with Christ to his satisfaction (no one can) I think she went in with the intention of perhaps doing good for him but it quickly became evident that he was out to harm her belief by not accepting any explaination. The good that I saw was that it did nothing to sway her belief and she could readily walk away. It did seem to be a waste of time on her part.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I didn't watch the whole thing because the woman, Tia, started off the wrong way. We do not believe in Jesus because the Bible tells us to, we believe the Bible because we know Jesus. There is no argument an atheist can give when you give your personal testimony in knowing Jesus.

The only reason you know about Jesus, is because the bible talks about him.

Nowhere on this planet do people "know" Jesus without having access to bibles or bible-reading christians telling them about him.

 

[“Paisios”]

I'm not much of an apologist, but much of my confidence is related to my personal experience of the living God. Other arguments tend to support that (and I often refer people to CS Lewis, who made sense to me), though I am not well versed enough to make them clearly, but it was His Presence that made me believe and changed my life. The whole question of the nature of reality and how to prove that it exists at all is a deep one and relates to all of life, not just God. I have to in part rely on experience, part rely on reasoning, but in the end am left with the idea that I can't know anything, except through faith.

 

[AlexDTX]

The only reason you know about Jesus, is because the bible talks about him.

Nowhere on this planet do people "know" Jesus without having access to bibles or bible-reading christians telling them about him.

Not true. I came to Christ without the Bible talking about him. I came to Christ because a Messianic Jew asked me some very thought provoking questions. After I had met the Lord, then I began to read the Bible seriously. But you are an atheist and do not know Christ because you do not want to know him.

 

[Non sequitur]

Not true. I came to Christ without the Bible talking about him. I came to Christ because a Messianic Jew asked me some very thought provoking questions. After I had met the Lord, then I began to read the Bible seriously. But you are an atheist and do not know Christ because you do not want to know him.

I think the point being, the bible talking about him is how you know about him. Nobody is saying directly.

Unless this Messianic Jew had not been introduced to a bible or heard of one...

Also, you can't speak for what someone wants to know or does not. You are not them. I doubt you'd like it if someone told you what you want, based solely on being a Christian.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I didn't watch the whole thing because the woman, Tia, started off the wrong way. We do not believe in Jesus because the Bible tells us to, we believe the Bible because we know Jesus. There is no argument an atheist can give when you give your personal testimony in knowing Jesus.

Ok. Good point, Alex. But, how do you think Tia should have started off in addressing the questions of the SE [i.e. Street Epistemologist]?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

His main point that was repeated was 'does belief make it true?' That seemed to be his resounding question. She couldn't explain the internal experience she had with Christ to his satisfaction (no one can) I think she went in with the intention of perhaps doing good for him but it quickly became evident that he was out to harm her belief by not accepting any explaination. The good that I saw was that it did nothing to sway her belief and she could readily walk away. It did seem to be a waste of time on her part.

Yes, I think you're right about the general direction of the SE's questions he posed to Tia. He's wondering about how belief relates to faith. Do you think there may be something else she could have said in her viewpoint that would have improved the possible strength of her position?

I noticed that you said you thought this encounter was a waste of time for her. What do you think would be Tia's most valuable use of her time as a Christian, particularly when encountering a Skeptic or Atheist?

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not much of an apologist, but much of my confidence is related to my personal experience of the living God. Other arguments tend to support that (and I often refer people to CS Lewis, who made sense to me), though I am not well versed enough to make them clearly, but it was His Presence that made me believe and changed my life. The whole question of the nature of reality and how to prove that it exists at all is a deep one and relates to all of life, not just God. I have to in part rely on experience, part rely on reasoning, but in the end am left with the idea that I can't know anything, except through faith.

Those are some good points, Shoetoyou. Much of our faith is composed of how we each see God having worked in our lives, minds and hearts. But, in Tia's case, was there anything else she could have said, or maybe you think she should have known about to 'defend' her faith?

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Adstar]

For those of you who may not have heard, there's a more socially incisive method being used by [some] atheists these past few years in their attempt to deconvert people from religion (or from Christian faith specifically). It's called Street Epistemology, and it's the atheist's answer to Street Evangelism often promoted by various evangelical Christians.

Needless to say, the conversations which transpire during these casual public encounters involve mostly common people, but they are interesting to listen to even if they're obviously not as entrenched or academically inclined as are debates between professionals.

In the particular *11 minute* video posted below, a fairly clear example of Street Epistemology is presented wherein an atheist---cool, calm and collected---delivers sustained questioning to a fairly young Christian woman. Her demeanor is cheerful and peepy, appearing somewhat confident even if maybe a just a bit nervous while giving her 'defense' of Christian faith.

As the video proceeds along, the atheist seems to gain the upper hand, but it also seems that mistakes in rational thinking are made on both sides of the conversation. As you listen in, let your own assessment of both persons spur your evaluation of how well you think each of them does in the overall discussion. What mistakes does she make in her thinking? What errors or false assumptions might characterize the atheist's mode of questioning? Is all of this a waste of time? What's good about this kind of encounter? What's bad about it? Then DISCUSS your evaluation of this Street Epistemology encounter:

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

I m loath to watch athiest Utuber videos because as soon as you watch just one for weeks after that your Recomendations list is full of athiest Christian hate videos.. Utube really likes to push the anti-christ agenda if they think they have a possible covert on their hands. They flood them with anti- christian videos..

 

[Non sequitur]

I m loath to watch athiest Utuber videos because as soon as you watch just one for weeks after that your Recomendations list is full of athiest Christian hate videos.. Utube really likes to push the anti-christ agenda if they think they have a possible covert on their hands. They flood them with anti- christian videos..

That's an algorithm at work, not some conspiracy.

It goes both ways.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I m loath to watch athiest Utuber videos because as soon as you watch just one for weeks after that your Recomendations list is full of athiest Christian hate videos.. Utube really likes to push the anti-christ agenda if they think they have a possible covert on their hands. They flood them with anti- christian videos..

Well, if you don't want to watch it, I won't place any guilt on you for it. I prefer that you do so as to better get in on the conversation as it applies to the OP, but if you don't want to, that's your choice then.

 

[AlexDTX]

I think the point being, the bible talking about him is how you know about him. Nobody is saying directly. Unless this Messianic Jew had not been introduced to a bible or heard of one...

Once again, not true. When God became the man Jesus, he had to refute the misunderstanding the Jews had about him because they did not understand the TANAK, ie, the Old Testament. The early church did not have the New Testament because it had not been written, yet they knew Jesus because when they believed that Jesus came back to life they were able to know know him for themselves. In the book of Galatians, Paul told the Greeks that Jesus had been crucified before them, yet they had not been in Israel when Jesus died. It was because they knew him through the new birth. You do not understand because you do not know him. You could know him, but you don't want to, either.

Also, you can't speak for what someone wants to know or does not. You are not them. I doubt you'd like it if someone told you what you want, based solely on being a Christian.

But I can say what God says about them. It was Jesus who said that people reject them because they love their sins.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think the point being, the bible talking about him is how you know about him. Nobody is saying directly.

Unless this Messianic Jew had not been introduced to a bible or heard of one...

Also, you can't speak for what someone wants to know or does not. You are not them. I doubt you'd like it if someone told you what you want, based solely on being a Christian.

So, what do you think the gal in the video (Tia) could have done better to address the questions of the SE?

 

[Adstar]

Well, if you don't want to watch it, I won't place any guilt on you for it. I prefer that you do so as to better get in on the conversation as it applies to the OP, but if you don't want to, that's your choice then.

Good try at guilting me into watching it Masterly and subtle lol

 

[AlexDTX]

Ok. Good point, Alex. But, how do you think Tia should have started off in addressing the questions of the SE [i.e. Street Epistemologist]?

I already said it: she should have stated that she knew the Lord first. However, from what I heard, I did not get the sense that she knew the Lord at all. Anyone whose faith in Christ is based upon reason can be persuaded against those reasons. Reasons buttress our faith, but do not replace our faith.

 

[Non sequitur]

Once again, not true. When God became the man Jesus, he had to refute the misunderstanding the Jews had about him because they did not understand the TANAK, ie, the Old Testament. The early church did not have the New Testament because it had not been written, yet they knew Jesus because when they believed that Jesus came back to life they were able to know know him for themselves. In the book of Galatians, Paul told the Greeks that Jesus had been crucified before them, yet they had not been in Israel when Jesus died. It was because they knew him through the new birth. You do not understand because you do not know him. You could know him, but you don't want to, either.

Again, I think you are missing the point. Word-of-mouth is not how people, now, are aware of him.

Are you not understanding this?

But I can say what God says about them. It was Jesus who said that people reject them because they love their sins.

Oh, you're one of those people. Discussions are pointless.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I already said it: she should have stated that she knew the Lord first. However, from what I heard, I did not get the sense that she knew the Lord at all. Anyone whose faith in Christ is based upon reason can be persuaded against those reasons. Reasons buttress our faith, but do not replace our faith.

...well, just to fill you in on Tia, she is a Christian, even if young and apparently inexperienced in sharing her faith in the face of Skeptical Inquiry. So, since you didn't watch the whole video, I'll just say that she ends up almost basically expressing the sentiments about faith that you've just mentioned. She says it at the end rather than the beginning.

Thank you for the point of scrutiny on the bit that you watched, Alex. I appreciate it.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Non sequitur]

So, what do you think the gal in the video (Tia) could have done better to address the questions of the SE?

I haven't watched it, but was replying to someone who is under the impression people now know of Jesus without there being a bible.

I'll watch it later and get back to you.